Ex Parte Kawato
Headline: Allows resident enemy aliens to sue in U.S. courts during wartime, overturning a lower court’s abatement and letting an immigrant seaman pursue unpaid wages and injury claims.
Holding: The Court ordered the lower court to reopen the case, holding that a resident alien born in an enemy country may bring civil claims in U.S. courts during war unless the President excludes them under the statute.
- Lets resident enemy aliens sue in federal courts unless the President excludes them.
- Requires lower courts to hear wage and injury claims from resident immigrants.
- Clarifies that wartime administrative controls do not automatically bar court access.
Summary
Background
The plaintiff is a man born in Japan who became a U.S. resident in 1905 and worked as a seaman on the vessel Rally. On April 15, 1941 he sued in federal admiralty court for unpaid wages and for maintenance and cure for injuries. The ship’s claimants moved on January 20, 1942 to abate the suit because the United States was at war with Japan and they asserted he was an "enemy alien." The District Court granted abatement, the petitioner sought mandamus relief in the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide the matter.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether a resident alien born in an enemy country may bring civil claims in U.S. courts during war. It reviewed the historical common law, Congressional purpose, and the Trading with the Enemy Act. The Court explained that American practice and Congress’s statute were not intended to close the courts to resident aliens unless the President specifically includes them by proclamation. The Government and Attorney General had construed existing law as allowing resident aliens to sue, and the Court held the District Court’s abatement was erroneous; mandamus was therefore appropriate to require the case to proceed.
Real world impact
The decision means lawful resident immigrants may pursue wage and injury lawsuits in U.S. courts during wartime unless the President expressly excludes them under the statute. The ruling does not decide the merits of the seaman’s claims and leaves in place other wartime administrative controls like internment and asset regulation, which are separate from the right to sue.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?